JUDGMENT : Deepak Gupta, J 1. This appeal by the Union of India is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 16th March, 2007, whereby he allowed CWP No. 51 of 2002 and held that the original writ petitioner Kuldeep K. Verma was entitled to grant of disability pension. The respondent (herein petitioner) was enrolled in the Indian Army as a Sepoy on 28th August, 1995. After completion of his training at Faizabad (UP), he was posted to 7 Dogra w.e.f. 10.7.1996. His Unit was posted at Secunderabad and while he was serving there, the petitioner was admitted to the Military Hospital, Secunderabad on 24.2.1998 and diagnosed as a patient of "Psychiatric Observation". His medical category was downgraded to "BEE (Temporary)" for six months w.e.f. 5.3.1998 and he continued in low medical category till 1998. 2. The petitioner was again admitted to 170 Military Hospital on 16th October, 1998 and further transferred to Command Hospital (Northern Command) on the same day. He was treated as a patient of "Unspecified Psychosis 298" and remained under constant treatment in the Command Hospital (Northern Command). The Classified Specialist (Psychiatry) of Command Hospital (Northern Command) in his opinion dated 11th April, 1999 opined that despite prolonged and adequate therapy the petitioner had not shown satisfactory response and therefore, could not be recommended for further retention in service. His medical category was downgraded to "EEE". Thereafter the petitioner was brought before the Invaliding Medical Board on 9th April, 1999 at Command Hospital (Northern Command) and it was recommended that he be invalided out of army service on the ground that he suffered from "Unspecified Psychosis-298". His disability was assessed at 30% for five years and was found to be neither attributable to nor aggravated by nor connected with military service. Thereafter, the petitioner was invalided out of military service w.e.f. 12th May, 1999. 3. The petitioner filed an appeal before the competent authority, which was rejected and then he approached this Court and the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment held that the petitioner was entitled to grant of disability pension. The learned Single Judge while discussing the case of the petitioner has come to the conclusion that this psychiatric ailment occurred during military service since at the time when the petitioner was enrolled in the army there was no record of his suffering from such ailment. The learned Single Judge while discussing the case of the petitioner has come to the conclusion that this psychiatric ailment occurred during military service since at the time when the petitioner was enrolled in the army there was no record of his suffering from such ailment. The learned Single Judge also held that the Medical Board had in fact recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of disability pension. This judgment is under challenge in the present appeal. 4. We have heard Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the appellant and Ms. Sunita Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. At the outset, we may state that it appears that the learned Single Judge clearly fell into an error while holding that the Medical Board had recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of disability pension. Here it would be pertinent to mention that the Medical Board proceedings consist of various documents. The first part of the Medical Board proceedings (Annexure R-1) deals with the proceedings held on 5th March, 1998 and this only shows that the petitioner was admitted on 2.12.1998 in military hospital, Secunderabad and the Medical Board was held on 5th March, 1998. It was further recommended that the case of the petitioner should be reviewed after six months. Part-II of Annexure R-1 is the opinion of the Medical Board. It is important to note that this is also dated 5th March, 1998, wherein it was recommended that the petitioner would be kept in medical category "BEE(T)". 6. Thereafter another Medical Board proceedings were held and this gives the history of the petitioner and this Medical Board proceeding is dated 16th April, 1999. The summary of the medical opinion is dated 11th April, 1999. This is the Medical Board which considered the case of the petitioner for invaliding him from service and came to the conclusion that the 21 years old petitioner was suffering from "Unspecified Psychosis" and despite treatment he has not shown satisfactory response and therefore, it was recommended that he should not be retained in service. This Medical Board was headed by Col. P. Ramadasan and consisted of Lt. Col. R. Malhotra and Maj. H.S. Batra. The opinion of the Specialist (Psychiatry) was upheld. Part-III of the opinion of the Medical Board is also signed by Col. This Medical Board was headed by Col. P. Ramadasan and consisted of Lt. Col. R. Malhotra and Maj. H.S. Batra. The opinion of the Specialist (Psychiatry) was upheld. Part-III of the opinion of the Medical Board is also signed by Col. P. Ramadasan and in Part-III it is clearly stated that the Psychiatric disorder is not connected with service. It has also been stated that it is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The President of the Medical Board on 19th April, 1999 has, however, further approved as follows:- The Medical board having carefully examined is of the opinion of 3995292P Sep Kuldeep Kumar of 7 Dogra (Rank, Name & Unit). The indl is suffering from UNSPECIFIED PSYCHOSIS-298 but is otherwise in good bodily health and has the respect of average duration of life, commutation of pension in his/her case therefore, recommended for acceptance. 7. Final approval to the opinion of the medical Board was given on 2nd May, 1999. Part-IV of the opinion of the Medical Board is in fact the Roll of the soldier which gives the entire service etc. as given by the Commanding Officer. In this Part there is recommendation at serial No. 21 that the case of the petitioner is recommended for both invalid and disability pension. It is, however, clear that this is not the recommendation of the Medical Board which met in April, 1999 but the recommendation of the Commanding Officer of the Unit and was made on 19th January, 1999 and by no stretch of imagination can be termed to be the opinion of the Medical Board. 8. The law is well settled that the Court cannot sit over the judgment of the Medical Board. A Division Bench of this Court in Santosh Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors. Latest HLJ 2007(HP) 329 after considering all the Rules and law held as follows:- 14. After giving our careful consideration to the rules and regulations and the authorities of the apex Court, we hold that to be entitled to disability pension, it must be established that the disability has occurred due to a wound injury or disease which is attributable to military service or existed before or arose during military service and has been and remains aggravated thereby. 15. 15. The apex Court has clearly held that clause (c) is not disjunctive and has to be read along with clauses (a) and (b) and, therefore, even if a disease is accepted as having arisen during service, it must also be established that the conditions of military service determined or contributed to the onset of the disease and that conditions were due to the circumstances of duty in military service. 16. The apex Court in Dhir Singh China's case (supra) also held that primacy has to be given to the report of the medical board. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Court sitting in writ jurisdiction cannot lightly interfere with the opinion of the medical board. This is not to say that the Court is bound by the opinion of the Medical Board. However, the said opinion being an opinion/finding of an expert body should not be unsettled in writ jurisdiction unless there are clear cut grounds for doing so. We also must observe that these rules provide that if two interpretations are possible, the interpretation favourable to the claimant should be taken. If the army personnel were in field service then the benefit should be given even more liberally. It is in this light of the observations that we shall not deal with the individual cases. 9. The learned Single Judge held that the petitioner was transferred from Hyderabad to field service concessional area J & K w.e.f. 22nd May, 1998 and therefore, presumption could be raised that since the area was hard and difficult there was huge stress and strain and hence the report of the Medical Board was not proper. We are unable to agree with the finding of the learned Single Judge. In this case the disease was discovered when the petitioner was posted at a peace station i.e. Hyderabad. The disorder or disability did not increase after his Unit was posted to J & K. Most importantly, though the Unit was posted to J & K,from the record it is more than apparent that the petitioner did not do any active service and virtually remained hospitalized from the time when his Unit was transferred from Hyderabad to J & K in May, 1998 till his discharge in April, 1999. 10. The Apex Court in Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others Vs. Damodaran A.V. (Dead) through LRs. and Others, held as follows: 17. 10. The Apex Court in Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others Vs. Damodaran A.V. (Dead) through LRs. and Others, held as follows: 17. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I am of the considered view that the Medical Board is an expert body and its opinion is entitled to be given due weight, value and credence. In the instant case, the Medical Board has clearly opined that the disability of late Shri A.V. Damodaran was neither attributable nor aggravated by the military service. In my considered view, both the learned Single judge and the Division Bench of the High Court have not considered this case in proper prospective and in the light of the judgments of this Court. The legal representatives of A.V. Damodaran are not entitled to the disability pension. 11. Normally, the Judges manning the High Courts are not medical experts and cannot sit in judgment over the opinion of the Medical Board unless the opinion on the face of it is contrary to the record or unless as pointed out in Santosh Kumar's case (supra) there are clear cut reasons for unsettling the medical report. This may be possible where there are conflicting medical opinions etc. but the Court cannot substitute its own opinion for the opinion of the Medical Board. Faced with this situation, Ms. Sunita Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Medical Board in its recommendation especially the portion quoted above, has recommended that the petitioner be granted pension. No doubt, the Medical Board has recommended the case of the petitioner for commutation of pension but this by no stretch of imagination can be held to mean that this is a recommendation for grant of disability pension. We, therefore, are of the considered opinion that the appeal must be allowed. In view of the above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 16th March, 2007 only in so far as CWP No. 51 of 2002 is concerned. No costs.